Close, R and Loosemore, M (2014) Breaking down the site hoardings: Attitudes and approaches to community consultation during construction. Construction Management and Economics, 32(7-8), pp. 816-828. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
As the general public become more empowered, informed and educated about the impact of business activities on their lives, they are demanding more involvement in construction projects which they perceive to affect their interests. The process of community consultation is traditionally seen as the responsibility of urban planners but residual community concerns often spill over into construction requiring construction professionals to also consult with communities. To investigate current attitudes and approaches towards community consultation during construction, 150 construction professionals were surveyed and 10 interviewed. The results indicate that the majority of the professionals involved during construction consider community consultation a burdensome, costly and time-consuming exercise. The community is seen as a liability rather than an asset and few construction professionals have the skills to consult effectively. There appears to be a widespread assumption that community consultation is the responsibility of town planners before work starts on site and that further interaction with the community is a nuisance, once construction starts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | community; consultation; corporate social responsibility; project management; risk |
| Index terms: | town planner, exercise, interaction, corporate social responsibility, project management, construction professional, community consultation, planner, liability, nuisance, construction project |
| Subjects: | professional development, project management theory and practice, production management, health safety and environment, behavioral psychology, liability law, regulatory law, profession, health behaviours and lifestyles, participation process |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here